Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc-01

[IJsbrand Wijnands <ice at cisco.com>]

Dear WG,

I like to get some input from the WG regarding draft-wijnands-mpls- 
mldp-csc-01.

I presented this draft in MPLS WG at IETF in Stockholm and got the  
comments from Yakov that this document contains work that belongs in  
L3VPN. It was suggested this document should be split in 2 different  
drafts, a non-L3VPN specific draft and a L3VPN specific draft.

Considering how small the draft is and how close the non-L3VPN and  
L3VPN procedures are, I would prefer to keep this one draft. We can do  
a last call in both WG's and present it in L3VPN, but we do the work  
in MPLS.

I would appreciate if you voice your opinion, after reading the  
draft :-)

Thx,

Ice.

Appendix:

This is small explanation on why procedures in section 3.1, 3.2 are  
considered to be L3VPN. The draft describes a procedure to use a  
Recursive Opaque encoding to help an mLDP LSP traverse a MPLS core  
that does not have reachability to the root of an LSP. Using the  
recursive Opaque encoding you temporarily replace the original FEC  
with a new FEC that has a root that is reachable. This procedure is  
useful in the VPN context and in the non-VPN context. The only  
difference is that you add an RD to the encoding for LSP's are that  
originated in the VPN context.